WPCLU  t0z!ݒ&{)G,^ el'0q7g(,#㈺)+KJ4{%!ɓZ) < |*€Pp='m48Ro(y\(F0,?Y'0>Y0bpcA!vV%xT6/  +Kn5/# 0m# 0e$ 0G% 0)& 0 ' 0' 0( 0) 02[* 0* 0:+ 0Y+ 0_, 0 {, 0- 0/ B* 1 D/71 D+f1 01 D/3 03 064 04 0:5 0^ 6 0<j6 1e6U6 7U>A7U*7 1u7 7280P8{<u=nTpBNCCNE^EEU8FN:F^ specificallydesignatedasafelonyand  regardlessoftheactualsentenceimposed,  whichmeansthatregardlessofhavingbeen p  sentencedtosixmonths,andtheCourtthere! F ! Idontknowwhateverthejudgedidand !l" sentencedhimtosixmonths,butaccordingto !B# whathewaschargedwith,hewaschargedwith "$ afelonythatcarriedatermofimprisonment #% ofmorethanoneyear,carriedafixedtermof t$& threeyears.J% '` x` x 8 `  Ifafterwardshepleabargainedandthe &F") casewasreducedtoamisdemeanor,thatis '#* somethingelse.Butforpurposesofthe (#+ guidelinesthatweareapplying,aprior x)$, felonyconvictionmeansastateconviction N*%-  punishablebyimprisonmentforaterm $+t&. exceedingoneyearregardlessoftheactual  sentenceimposed.` x` x  Thecourtthereforeappliedthesixteenlevelenhancementand 2 imposedthefortyonemonthsentence. .  B.LegalPrinciples     ` Thebodyoflawsurroundingtheproperclassificationof R   statecrimesforpurposesoffederalsentencingisbothcomplexand  N  growing,see,e.g.,Lopezv.Gonzales,2006WL3487031(U.S.Dec.   5,2006)(No.05547),andthisisnotthefirsttimethatwehave V  confrontedadefendantsattempttolinktheshortlengthofhis R sentencetothecrimesstatusundertheSentencingGuidelines.In  UnitedStatesv.Santiago,83F.3d20(1stCir.1996),the Z appellantclaimedthathistwopriorconvictionsforassaultand V batterydidnotsatisfythecareeroffenderrequirementthatthey  be punishablebyimprisonmentforatermexceedingoneyear ^ becausehereceivedsixmonthsentencesoneachoccasion.Id.at  Z 2627(quoting_ U.S.S.G._ Ԁ4B1.2(1)).Wenoted,however,thatthe  offenseswerepunishableatthetimetheyoccurredbyimprisonment b ! ofuptotwoandonehalfyears,andwemadethefollowing "^# observation:"Theguideline...doesnotspeakintermsofa # % judicialjudgment(thelengthofthesentencemetedout),but, f% ' rather,intermsofalegislativejudgment(themaximumpunishment 'b") applicabletotheoffense).Id.at27(emphasisinoriginal).We ($+ thusheldthecrimesqualifiedaspredicateconvictionsforcareer j*%- offenderstatus. ,f'/  ` Othercaselawinourcircuitandelsewhereconfirmsthat  itisthestatutorymaximumforaparticularcrime,andnotthe \ specificsentenceimposed,thatdeterminesthecrimesstatus, X includingitsclassificationasafelonyunder2L1.2.See,e.g.,   UnitedStatesv._ Caicedo_ Ԅ_ Cuero_ ,312F.3d697,70406(5thCir. `  2002)(rejectingdefendantscontentionthatmandatorysuspended  \  sentenceforfirsttimeoffenderremovedpriorcrimefrom   classificationas felonyunder2L1.2wherestatuteprovidedfor d  maximumtwoyeartermofimprisonment);UnitedStatesv._ Robles_ Ԅ `  Rodriguez,281F.3d900,90306(9thCir.2002)(rejectingfelony   classificationunder2L1.2wheremaximumauthorizedpunishment h wasprobation);UnitedStatesv.Sanchez,917F.2d607,615(1st d Cir.1990)(rejectingclaimthatdistrictcourterroneouslytreated  crimesasfelonieswheredefendantsweresentencedtosixyears l  butactuallyservedlessthanoneyearandonemonth). h  ` Theissuehere,however,ismateriallydifferent.  Appellantdoesnotseektoclassifyacrimebasedsolelyonthe p  sentenceimposed,butinvokesthesentenceasdecisiveproofthat !l" hewasconvictedofamisdemeanor.Framedinthelanguageweused "$ inSantiago,theissueiswhetherappellantssixmonthtermwas t$& theproductofajudicialjudgmentastotheappropriatesentence  &p!( forthefelonywithwhichhewascharged,oralegislativejudgment '#* astotheappropriatepenaltyforalessercrime.Putanotherway, x)$, wasappellantconvictedandsentencedforthemisdemeanorcrimeof $+t&. aggravatedbattery!forwhichthelegislaturefixedamaximumsix  monthprisonterm!orwashesentencedlenientlyforthefelony \ crimeofaggravatedbattery?Iftheformer,theconvictionwould X notqualifyasafelonycrimeofviolenceunder2L1.2.   Ѐ@88) II. `   󀀀Wetypicallyreviewdenovo thedistrictcourts ( x  determinationofthelegalmeaningofguidelinesprovisions. $  UnitedStatesv.Robinson,433F.3d31,35(1stCir.2005);United   Statesv.Sanchez_ Mota_ ,319F.3d1,2(1stCir.2002)(percuriam) 8  (interpreting2L1.2).Acourtsfactualfindingsonsentencing 4 arereviewedonlyforclearerror.Robinson,433F.3dat38.The  questionwefacehereislegal,requiringustoconsiderboththe < natureofPuertoRicosaggravatedbatterystatuteandthelegal 8 significanceowedtoappellantspleaandsentencingunderthe  provision.Accordingly,weapplydenovoreview. @  ` S Appellantconcedesthathewaschargedwithfelony < aggravatedbattery,buthearguesthattheonlyconclusionthatcan   bedrawnfromhissixmonthsentenceisthathewasconvictedof P!" thelessseriouscrimeofmisdemeanoraggravatedbattery.Thisis #X$ so,hemaintains,becausePuertoRicowasafixedsentence $ & jurisdictionatthetimeofhisconviction,andthejudgewho `&!(  sentencedhimwasthereforeobligatedtofollowthefixedterm  (\#* prescribedbystatute.Q #  7      ׀Ifhewereconvictedofafelony,that   termwouldhavebeenbetweentwoandfiveyears,withathreeyear \ termbeingthestandard.Hearguesthat,becausehewassentenced X tosixmonthsincarceration,hemusthavebeenconvictedof   misdemeanoraggravatedbattery. `   ` Wefindthisreasoningpersuasive.UnderArticle95, _   eachformofaggravatedbatteryhasitsownsetoffactual  [  criteria.Atthetimeofappellantscrime,aggravatedbatterywas   classifiedasamisdemeanorwhencommittedunderone(ormore)of c  sevenspecificallydesignatedcircumstances,including [_ w]hen_  _ committedwiththeintenttoinflictseriousbodilyinjury.P.R.   LawsAnn.tit.33,4032(e)(1983).i6 #  8      ׀Aggravatedbatterywas g consideredafelony,however,underthreeotherspecified c instances,including [_ w]hen_ Ԁseriousbodilyinjuryisinflictedon  Oa     thepersonassaulted,id.at4032(b)(secondpart),andwhenit  was committedwithdeadlyweaponsundercircumstancesnot \ amountingtoanintenttokillormaim,id.at4032_ (c_ )(second X part).q #  9          ` Thedistrictcourthadnoinformationbeforeitother   thanthatappellanthadbeenchargedwiththefelonyversionof _   aggravatedbattery!andthathereceivedasixmonthsentence.  [  TranslatingfromSpanish,thecourtquotedthecomplaintfiled   againstappellant,inpertinentpart,asfollows: c  8 ` [_ D]efendant_ Ԁ...illegally,voluntarily, b maliciously,andwithcriminalintention,did 8 useforceorviolenceagainstahumanbeing. ^ ..withthepurposeofcausinghimharm, 4 committingsaidcrimewithdeadlyweapons   undercircumstancesthatdonotamounttoan  intenttokillortomaim._ RX #  10      _ f` x` x Unquestionably,thelanguageinthecomplainttracksthelanguage  insubsection_ (c_ )ofthefelonyportionofArticle95referringto d theuseofdeadlyweapons.Thecourtconcludedthatitshould ` relyonthatlanguage,ratherthanonthesentence,toclassifythe    crime.Itrecognized,reasonably,thatsentencesoftenreflecta h"" varietyoffactors,anditsownexperiencerevealedthat,insome $d$ cases,pleabargainingcanresultina misdemeanorpenaltyfora  felonycharge. \  ` However,underPuertoRicolaw,asentencingjudge [ imposingatermofimprisonmentforthefelonycrimeofaggravated  W batteryappearstolackthediscretiontoreducethesentencebelow   thestatutoryminimumoftwoyears.Law100providesthat,when _   extenuatingoraggravatingcircumstancesexisttojustifydeparting  [  fromthestandardthreeyearterm, thecourtmustincreaseor   decreasetheestablishedfixedsentencewithinthelimits c  establishedbylawforthecrime.P.R.LawsAnn.tit.34,1044 _ (1980)(emphasisadded).Thus,thesixmonthsentenceisstrong   evidencethatappellantsconvictionwasnotforafelonyandthat, g consequently,itcannotsupportthepenaltyofasixteenlevel c increaseinhisoffenselevel.   ` TheFifthCircuitalsohasconsideredanillegalreentry  caseinvolvingachallengetothesixteenlevelenhancement,andan j importantdifferenceincontextprovidessomeperspectivehere.In  f  UnitedStatesv.RiveraPerez,322F.3d350(5thCir.2003)(per !" curiam),theappellantarguedthathispriorconvictiondidnot n#$ constituteafelonycrimeofviolencebecausehispleaagreement %j & providedthathewouldbepunishedasifthecrimewerea &"( misdemeanor,withaoneyearmaximumsentence,andhewassentenced r(#*  toatermofninetydays.Id.at35152. *n%,  ` Thecourtrejectedtheappellantsargumentbecause,   underaprovisionofTexaslaw, acrimeremainsafelonyevenif \ punishedasamisdemeanor.Id.at352(citingTex.PenalCode X 12.44(a)).Significantly,thepleabargaininthatcasestated,   withemphasis,thatdespiteRiverasmisdemeanorlikepunishment, `  thejudgment shallconstituteAFINALFELONYCONVICTIONFORTHE  \  DEFENDANT.Id.    ` Thegovernment,whichonappealendorsesthedistrict   court'sruling(despiteitsagreementatsentencingthatthe c  aggravatedbatteryconvictionwasamisdemeanor),citesno _ comparableprovisionofPuertoRicolaw.Itreliesonthedistrict   court'srationalethatapleabargainmayhavepromptedareduced g felonysentence,andalternativelysuggeststhatthePuertoRico c courtmayhaveimposedasixmonthtermbecauseofextenuatingor  mitigatingcircumstances.Thatlogic,however,requiresthe k governmenttoarguethatthePuertoRicocourtimposedasentence g thatwasnotpermittedbyCommonwealthlaw,whichsetsatwoyear   minimumforfelonyaggravatedbattery.Wethinkitmoresensible o!" toconcludethatthePuertoRicocourtimposedalawfulsentence #k$ formisdemeanoraggravatedbattery.Indeed,ifweweretodeem $ & thisconvictionafelonyforpurposesof_ U.S.S.G._ Ԁ2L1.2,wethink s&!( itlikelythatwewouldbeelevatingtheseverityofthecrime (o#* beyondtheintentofthelawthatcriminalizedtheconduct.We )%, haveneitherauthoritynorinclinationtotakesuchastep.We w+&. holdthatappellantsaggravatedbatteryconvictionmaynotbe  treatedasafelonyincalculatinghissentence. \  ` Vacatedandremandedforresentencing.#`XXXX*#